Demon types - where did they go?

[Bregh]

Actually, the MM states that "Six are known to exist" (emphasis added).

Which means that if a DM really needed them, he or she could sneak one or two more Type VIs onto the list, confounding Players who are also DMs and thus know the six "known" names.

After all, there's bound to be a couple surprises lurking about on 666 planes of infinite Chaos and Evil.

 

[Melan]

Bregh: that's a good point.

 

[The Serge]

Actually, the MM states that "Six are known to exist" (emphasis added).

Which means that if a DM really needed them, he or she could sneak one or two more Type VIs onto the list, confounding Players who are also DMs and thus know the six "known" names.

After all, there's bound to be a couple surprises lurking about on 666 planes of infinite Chaos and Evil.

Yeah... But this didn't make sense back in 1980 any more than it makes sense now. Considering that there were four Demon Princes (Demogorgon, Juiblex, Orcus, and Yeenoghu) in that book, having only six or eight Type VI Demons never made any sense... particularly if one considers that there were/are 666 layers in The Abyss.

It also stands against the concept of Chaos that there are types of Demons and specific numbers of Demons. Having 999 Pit Fiends is one thing... Afterall, Devils are organized and stratified. Having 6 Type VI Demons (who were weaker than Pit Fiends in 1ed, another point that makes little sense considering their smaller numbers) is too organized and put together.

This one thing I'm glad they did away with with 2ed and have maintained into 3ed and 3.5.

 

[Gez]

Actually, the 6 types of demonkind come from before even OD&D. They were in Eldritch Wizardry, as well as the Succubus IIRC (which was the only demon not numbered). And that's all.

 

[Piratecat]

Ah, but do you know where in the 1e core rules it lists the names of the other Type VI demons?

 

[Bregh]

I don't believe Type VI demons were intended to be the Abyssal equivalent of diabolic Pit Fiend. That's an establishment of 2nd edition's MC 8 and the "Blood War".

Type VIs are just that, Type VIs. Alike because of their shared characteristics, not because they fill some niche. In fact, the Type is disliked in the Abyss because they "tend towards a more organised evil (which makes it less than popular with demon lords and princes)".

And there's nothing in the MM to imply the info there is static, not wrt the numbers of Type VI, or that the demons given in the volume are the only ones available. Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth presented a host of new demon types, many of which will be familiar to AD&D2 and D&D3 players, that were heretofore unknown (these were collected in MMII), and more appeared in The Dragon, as well.

I don't see particularly were sense ought to be implied, or is even necessary. OAD&D is bent more towards a loose style of play, where DMs use monsters as they need them or deem it appropriate--one of the reasons, for example, that OAD&D DMs despise the "Ecology" sections that appeared in the second edition for bringing the limitations of coherent "sense" into the game. (Of course, lots of other DMs liked that sort of thing, too, and this preference underscores a shift in gaming philosophy--neither is necessarily more correct thant the other.)

As an aside, some of the perceived "weakness" of Type VIs in OAD&D relates to its HD: 8+8, which are meant to be d10s, and not d8s, as established in OD&D's Eldritch Wizardry, and confirmed on this board some time back by EGG (in one of the "Q&A" threads). Bear in mind, OAD&D wasn't formed of whole cloth back in the day, and the MM uses many conventions (Alignment, classes, &c) based on OD&D and not what would later became AD&D. HD for Type V and VI demons are one of these. Using the d10 gives the Type VI a stronger range of HPs, and the most powerful/largest (ie. Balor) is as big and bad as a huge, ancient red dragon--certainly nothing to scoff at.

(edit: noticed a couple of typos)

 

[Bregh]

Ah, but do you know where in the 1e core rules it lists the names of the other Type VI demons?

The DMG, natch.

(Players aren't supposed to know that kind of thing!)

 

[The Serge]

I don't believe Type VI demons were intended to be the Abyssal equivalent of diabolic Pit Fiend. That's an establishment of 2nd edition's MC 8 and the "Blood War".

I disagree with the initial statement. For the most part, the various Lords of Evil and the higher ranking "generic" fiends are very comparable. True, the parallels aren't as severe as what happened in 2ed and the emergence of The Blood War, but it was there to begin with. Afterall, when one looks at Demogorgon and Asmodeus, it's clear that these two monsters are supposed to parallel each other as the pinnacles of Chaotic evil and Lawful evil respectively.

Type VIs are just that, Type VIs. Alike because of their shared characteristics, not because they fill some niche. In fact, the Type is disliked in the Abyss because they "tend towards a more organised evil (which makes it less than popular with dmon lords and princes).

But it's that sentence that implies that they do fill some kind of niche... a more organized alternative in The Abyss to the Demon Lords and Demon Princes.

Furthermore, "type" implies a nich, group, or organization.... something I've always (and to this day, still) thought was a silly concept for creatures of The Abyss. The Hordlings would have made better demons than the demons in the 1ed MM.

And there's nothing in the MM to imply the info there is static, not wrt the numbers of Type VI, or that the demons given in the volume are the only ones available.

"Six are known to exist" implies that there is a limit to the number of these creatures and that the limit isn't going to be much more than six...

I don't see particularly were sense ought to be implied, or is even necessary. OAD&D is bent more towards a loose style of play, where DMs use monsters as they need them or deem it appropriate--one of the reasons, for example, that OAD&D DMs despise the "Ecology" sections that appeared in the second edition for bringing the limitations of coherent "sense" into the game. (Of course, lots of other DMs liked that sort of thing, too, and this preference underscores a shift in gaming philosophy--neither is necessarily more correct thant the other.)

The suggestion of "loose style of play" is debatable, but not the subject for this thread, so I'll leave it alone.

I do agree with you on the issue of Ecology, though. However, there's a lot of ecological material in OAD&D on the Planes, whether one goes with the magazines, modules, or (especially) Manual of the Planes, which provides very clear indications of what Gygax and company had in mind. This material was not just in statistics, but in very thorough flavor-text. That's why I am of the opinion that the limitation in numbers for the Type VI Demon is pretty much the way it's supposed to be officially. Everything strongly implies as much.

 

[Bregh]

Furthermore, "type" implies a nich, group, or organization.... something I've always (and to this day, still) thought was a silly concept for creatures of The Abyss. The Hordlings would have made better demons than the demons in the 1ed MM.

I doubt the creatures of the Abyss bother with these designations, nor with any that are comprehendable to Prime Material mortals. The classifications are those given by Wizards and sages, undoubtedly--based on criteria relevant to them, not the demons. Such individualistic Chaos must have every Vrock screeching with insistance that there was no other creature like it on all the planes.

"Six are known to exist" implies that there is a limit to the number of these creatures and that the limit isn't going to be much more than six...

I diasgree. :shrug: No big thing, as far as I can see. The glory of the game is that two different DMs can a approach the situation from two opposite ends, as we obviously have.

The suggestion of "loose style of play" is debatable, but not the subject for this thread, so I'll leave it alone.

Not so much a "loose style of play" as no established canon being required or sought in these matters. Six Type VIs are "known" to exist--rather like six of anything rare or marvellous being "known" to exist. At the time of the MM there were only ten "known" dragon types--no shadow dragons, faerie dragons, cloud dragons, mist dragons, gem dragons. Certainly, from a campaign perspective, these didn't spring into existence overnight. The drow weren't "known" to exist as of the MM, either. Such an adherence to the letter written (and not necessarily to the spirit of what was meant) seems unnecessarily limiting.

I do agree with you on the issue of Ecology, though. However, there's a lot of ecological material in OAD&D on the Planes, whether one goes with the magazines, modules, or (especially) Manual of the Planes, which provides very clear indications of what Gygax and company had in mind.

And you would be quite far off the mark in assuming the MotP was the planes as envisioned by EGG. And you need not take it from me, as he has opined so many times, including the "Q&A" thread on this board. (Which isn't to slam the MotP, its author, or its fans.) Indeed, Moore's Astral Plane article in Dragon and DCS's Queen of the Demonweb Pits present remarkably different views of the Planes than what was served up in The Dragon early on by EGG, or in the PHB, or by Kuntz and Ward in the DDG. What's a DM to do? Pick which one(s) work best for him or her and go with it, of course. Which seems to be what you and I are doing.

 

[Alaric_Prympax]

IDHTBIFOM, it's in a box somewhere in the closet, but didn't the MM2 under Pazuzu mention that he had 6 Type VI servents with him at all times who were different from the ones mentioned in the MM and DMG? I thought that made it 12 Type VI's and I could swear that I read someplace else, though for the life I me I can't remember where, that there were 6 more bringing the total to 18 Type VI's, I not too sure on that though. I'm pretty sure about the MM2 though. It's been a lonnggg time since I opened up my 1e stuff.